I do not know your legal background, but I and several attorney’s I have hired have done extensive research on the high water mark issue in California. The unfortunate truth is the local jurisdiction determines the trespass laws when it comes to high water mark. The defendant would be responsible for proving that the river was navigable and that he stayed below the high water mark. That alone is a very difficult to prove. Just what is the high water mark on any river requires a considerable effort in showing the history of the flows and surveying the property. Who is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a survey in order to prove a judge was wrong.

I have been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the last 40 years and know something of appeals as I have been through hundreds. The burden of presenting a preponderance of evidence that the hearing judge misinterpreted the law is upon the appealing party. Judges like doctors give the benefit of any question to the judge that heard the case. Overturning a decision is pretty rare. In the case of high water mark there are differing pinions all over the state. The most often used opinion is that from the Jan Stevens retired Ca Attorney General “Public Trust Document” Unfortunately, this is an opinion that was made after Mr Steven retired and has no legal standing. The title is misleading and was added after it was written for the purpose editorial purpose.

There are thousands if not millions of opinions on what constituent the high water mark throughout the state and the country. Unless someone is going to take the issue to the US Supreme Court it will most likely be decided locally. In California alone there are thousands of local decisions that conflict with each other. So yes, the determination of trespass and high water mark are local decisions.

The biggest obstacle in this matter who be showing how you got to the water without trespassing and staying below the high water mark at all times. I have fished many rivers and it is just about impossible to stay below the high water mark at all times. It is just too easy to step out of the river to go around a deep pocket or large obstruction.

It’s possible not all dredging is bad for a fishery, but it’s also true that most dredging isn’t very good, and done at the wrong time of year, it can be extremely damaging. It relocates benthics downstream; integrates toxic heavy metals from the bottom back into the water flow, and can seriously damage spawning redds (of all species), decimate fry populations, etc.

And while private property should be respected, the point of this battle was that the public’s legal right to access rivers wasn’t being respected, and yes, there is still a great deal of public access being improperly denied on the Scott and Shasta Rivers.

Most people think that the high water mark is the highest level that the water has risen. In actuality it is the normal high water flow, not including flood or storm related runoff. Many streams have charts of what is the normal flow so it’s pretty easy to determine the high water mark by looking at the chart. Throw out the storms and unusually high peak flows and that is what the legal high water mark is determined to be by the state of California. For the most part people trespass when fishing because it’s pretty hard to get to or stay in the river when fishing a stretch.

There are also exceptions to the high water mark on navigable rivers. The two most prominent are Mexican Land Grants and Federally Deeded Mining Claims. Property that was a Federally Deeded mining claims in the mid 1800, or are part of the original Mexican Land Grants parcels are not subject to the high water mark determination. Many of these deeds state that while the water is passing through the property it is owned by the land owner. When it leaves the private property ownership goes back to the state.

On the dredging issue, not all dredging is bad for the fishery. If done properly it actually can improve the spawning areas for fish to lay eggs. If large holes are left that trap fish that is against the law and certainly something that should be reported. There is a sizable fine for do this.

lastly, while it would be great to have all rivers and stream open to the public, private property should be respected. If you have ever gone to fish public areas where garbage is spewed around the rivers edge you may understand why private land owners do not want people coming on to their property and leaving their garbage for them to clean up.

Subject: Draft Environmental Plan: Statement of Policies on Natural Resources

I am a writer and business consultant with a home on a hundred foot riverfront lot in Dunsmuir, Butterfly Avenue. I am very opposed to many of the ideas in your recent “Statement of Policies on Natural Resources.”

First, defining the County rivers (except for the Klamath) as “non-navigable” destroys fishermen’s, kayakers’, rafters’, and inner tubers’ access. In the United States with a great history of public ownership of parks, rivers, lakes and streams, this designation would deny these citizens’ right to recreate and enjoy many of our beautiful northern California rivers. It is fun and exciting to watch kids tube down and watch fishermen catch a trout in the river behind our home. If this policy were to be adopted, then, like much of Colorado, the corporate, the wealthy, and the private clubs would own and control huge amounts of river access for the benefit of the few.

Second, the policy supports mining which is environmentally destructive, an eyesore. Why are the rights of suction dredge miners so carefully protected when fishermen and rafters receive no support? In-stream suction dredge mining, an entirely “benign” activity? Ridiculous. This advocates mining monetary profit over ecology and environmental concerns. Is that your mission? It certainly does not represent the concept of stewardship. Reviewing the policy statement, I am wondering what motivates some of the commissioners to support such a disaster.

Further, limiting fishing/rafting/kayaking access decreases tourist dollars to an area like Dunsmuir that drastically needs them. The lawsuits this policy will generate would have a negative impact on county officials’ resources, and a negative impact on property values as riverfront will increase in value but the other town properties will correspondingly decrease with the limiting of recreational opportunity. As a riverfront property owner this policy would benefit me personally but would harm the community as a whole. It is your responsibility to protect the public against self-serving business interests and protect everyone’s property values. The proposed policy would be detrimental to the Dunsmuir, McCloud and Mt. Shasta economies.

So, whom does this policy serve? Mining Companys, big agriculture, ranchers, and the timber industry. Hmmm. I urge you to reconsider your responsibility to the majority of people in this county and remove the “non-navigable” language from the plan or scrap the plan altogether.

Sincerely, Charlie Price 6027 Butterfly, Dunsmuir CA

Neither ever fished the Klamath in those days however, without a Sidearm. There were many confrontations with my Indian Brothers about the rights of White People to fish or even Be There, and the sidearm usually carried more weight than rocks and bravado.

Will we see a return to the “good ole’ days” if this passes? There are fishermen who deem any body of water theirs by right of intent, and property owners who fence every possible corner of their holdings. Neither is right, but the confrontations will escalate and become violent if this passes.

My 2ç worth.

I put a link to this article on “The Contemplative Angler”. I hope you don’t mind.

Warmest regards,
Reed

Here in Virginia, something similar happened with the King’s Grant issue on the great Jackson River. As a result of the King’s Grant to the landowners in the 1600’s, they own the fish in the river and the birds in the sky – NO access for anyone else.

This is similar. Hope we can beat this back.

Here’s a link to the post:

http://www.switchfisher.com/articles/Urgent-KeeptheJacksonfrom.html

I live in Virginia and visit the Redding / Dunsmuir area two or three times a year to fly fish for trout in your great rivers and streams. I was shocked to read about the current initiative under consideration that would designate many of your great rivers as non-navigable.

If that happens, I’ll go to Montana instead. I imagine you get a lot of tourist traffic headed to Northern California that would go elsewhere – probably a bigger impact on your economy if you consider the folks that drive up to the Mt Shasta area from other locations in California.

I don’t know how much your region depends on sportsmen for economic health – but passing this resolution will certainly cut off a chunk of the money that flows into the economy and the associated taxes from folks like me. In my case, you lose the hotel, guide and meals revenue. In addition, I always stop at the local fly shops and purchase the latest top producing lures and other equipment. That will be gone as well.

I just do not see an upside to this decision… and urge you to vote it down.

thanks,

Steve Moore
Woodbridge, VA
Trout and Bass Blog: http://www.switchfisher.com

Protection for suction dredge mining?? Provisos against the reintroduction of wolves?

It’s interesting that while the supervisors are trying to kill every vestige of a sustainable, fisheries-based economy, others are spending their time figuring out that salmon and steelhead caught by sport anglers on the Klamath (the Supervisors oppose the Klamath dam removals too) are worth about $200 each to the local economy — and that those “resources” don’t ravage the landscape, overgraze, overcut or otherwise mutilate everything in sight.

Howl away, Undergrounders. There’s still much to do.